Information-theoretic tools for mining database structure from large data sets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data design has been characterized as a process of arriving at a design that maximizes the information content of each piece of data (or equivalently, one that minimizes redundancy). Information content (or redundancy) is measured with respect to a prescribed model for the data, a model that is often expressed as a set of constraints. In this work, we consider the problem of doing data redesign in an environment where the prescribed model is unknown or incomplete. Specifically, we consider the problem of finding structural clues in an instance of data, an instance which may contain errors, missing values, and duplicate records. We propose a set of information-theoretic tools for finding structural summaries that are useful in characterizing the information content of the data, and ultimately useful in data design. We provide algorithms for creating these summaries over large, categorical data sets. We study the use of these summaries in one specific physical design task, that of ranking functional dependencies based on their data redundancy. We show how our ranking can be used by a physical data-design tool to find good vertical decompositions of a relation (decompositions that improve the information content of the design). We present an evaluation of the approach on real data sets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".